.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Mutualist Blog: Free Market Anti-Capitalism

To dissolve, submerge, and cause to disappear the political or governmental system in the economic system by reducing, simplifying, decentralizing and suppressing, one after another, all the wheels of this great machine, which is called the Government or the State. --Proudhon, General Idea of the Revolution

My Photo
Location: Northwest Arkansas, United States

Thursday, July 13, 2006

The Truth Matters Less Than Who's Saying It

Ron Bailey moves toward the middle on global warming, and some commenters at Reason Hit&Run go batshit. Art, for example, wrote:

You have me very worried. You keep falling into these eco-socialist and tranhumanist indoctrination camps. You're not being critical or informed about the so called "Truth." You are doing nothing more than complaining about the color of Al's tie, while buying into their nonsense that simply cloaks the desire of the ecosocialists to control people and resources while producing nothing.

As I responded,

Art engages in the same tactic Al Gore is accused of, but from the opposite direction: worrying about whose hands an argument plays into, rather than whether it's backed up by the facts. Questions of truth take a second place to the need to stonewall on acknowledging any fact that "the enemy" might benefit from. It doesn't matter whether something is true or not, if it's something the eco-socialists agree with.

Believe it or not, Art, statism does not inevitably follow from the acknowledgment that human activity may be significantly increasing mean temperatures. The fact that you assume it does demonstrates that you have assumptions in common with many of the "eco-socialists": that existing economic trends result from the free market, and that state intervention is necessary to counter them.

In fact, just the opposite is true. The government needs to stop subsidizing the consumption of energy and transportation, so that the full cost of transportation is reflected in its price, and the full cost of shipping goods long distance is internalized in their price. If such government intervention were eliminated, we might be buying stuff made in efficient small factories 20 miles away instead of huge factories 1000 miles away, or buying produce grown close to home instead of from factory farms with subsidized irrigation water in California. We might be living closer to where we shop and work, instead of maintaining two separate communities for living and working, each with its own utility grid, and commuting back and forth between them.

The free market is the solution, not the problem.


Anonymous Anonymous said...


the radical Lockean approach to global warming would be this:

we all have an inalienable, individual equal access opportunity right to use the sky as both a source and sink (common asset) upto the sustainable yield (Locke's proviso)

but beyond Locke's proviso the inherent negative externalities that appear become a defacto tax on the wages of those being excluded violating their absolute rights to their wages and hence self-ownership itself.

it is a righful and just use of force to protect those property rights by limiting our use of the commons to the sustainable yield and then internalize those externalities by requiring annual pollution permits upto that amount to be purchased on the open market.

the resulting economic rent is then to be rebated to everyone via a citizens dividend.

July 14, 2006 3:51 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home